Apps Script MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to other deployment settings not mentioned, rate limits, or error conditions. It mentions only one updatable field (description) without clarifying if this is the only field that can be updated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Args section is well-structured and easy to parse. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the 0% schema coverage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and 3 parameters, the description should provide more behavioral context about what 'update' entails, potential side effects, and usage constraints. The current description is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantic meaning for all three parameters (script_id, deployment_id, description), explaining what each represents. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples. For a tool with 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this is minimal but adequate compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('existing deployment configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_deployment_tool' and 'delete_deployment_tool' by specifying it updates existing configurations rather than creating or deleting them. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the deployment configuration can be updated beyond the description field.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing deployment), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_script_content_tool' or 'update_event_tool'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.